Sheriff v. J. E. Tallieu Real Estate, Inc.

595 So. 2d 686, 1992 La. App. LEXIS 501, 1992 WL 32705
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedFebruary 18, 1992
DocketNo. 91-CA-665
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 595 So. 2d 686 (Sheriff v. J. E. Tallieu Real Estate, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sheriff v. J. E. Tallieu Real Estate, Inc., 595 So. 2d 686, 1992 La. App. LEXIS 501, 1992 WL 32705 (La. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

KLIEBERT, Chief Judge.

This is an action by plaintiffs, the Reverend John E. Sheriff and the Tabernacle Community Church, Inc., to recover $8,000.00 placed as a deposit to purchase real estate from defendant, Charles G. Jones, the property owner, J. E. Tallieu Real Estate, Inc., the property broker, and Vincent DeSalvo, the real estate agent. This debt was included in Mr. Jones’ bankruptcy estate from which he was discharged on December 4,1986. Thus, Jones moved for summary judgment which was granted. Plaintiffs appeal.

A motion for summary judgment should be granted only if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file and affidavits show there is no genuine issue as to material fact and the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. LSA-C.C.P. Art. 966; Kerwin v. Nu-way Const. Service, Inc., 451 So.2d 1193 (5th Cir.1984), writ denied 457 So.2d 11. The burden of proof is on the mover to establish there are no genuine issues of material fact and this burden is a great one, as only when reasonable minds must inevitably concur is summary judgment warranted, and any doubts should be resolved in favor of trial on the merits. Shafouk Nor El Din Hamza v. Bourgeois, 493 So.2d 112 (5th Cir.1986).

LSA-C.C.P. art. 967 provides:

Art. 967. Same; affidavits
Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. Sworn or certified copies of all papers or parts thereof referred to in an affidavit shall be attached thereto or served therewith. The court may permit affidavits to be supplemented or opposed by depositions, answers to interrogatories, or by further affidavits.
When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided above, an adverse party may not rest on the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided above, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be rendered against him.
If it appears from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion that for reasons stated he cannot present by affidavit facts essential to justify his opposition, the court may refuse the application for judgment or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or may make such other order as is just.
If it appears to the satisfaction of the court at any time that any of the affidavits presented pursuant to this article are presented in bad faith or solely for the purposes of delay, the court immediately shall order the party employing them to [688]*688pay to the other party the amount of the reasonable expenses which the filing of the affidavits caused him to incur, including reasonable attorney’s fees. Any offending party or attorney may be adjudged guilty of contempt.

Plaintiffs contend supplemental interrogatories propounded to Jane E. Tallieu and Tallieu’s answers show Mr. Jones and Mr. DeSalvo told Tallieu the real estate transaction had been completed and that they were entitled to their respective portions of the deposit money. Therefore, plaintiffs contend, Jones committed a fraud bringing this matter under the exception to the bankruptcy stay provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 157(b)(2)(G)1 for personal injury tort or wrongful death claims.

Jones contends the debt has been both stayed from enforcement by the defendant’s filing for bankruptcy relief under Chapter 7 of Title 11, U.S.C. § 3622 and [689]*689extinguished by the debtor’s discharge in bankruptcy granted December 4, 1986. 11 U.S.C. § 524.3 Thus, the summary judgment was properly granted.

[690]*690Jones filed for bankruptcy and included plaintiffs and the debt made the subject of this action on his schedule of debts. Plaintiffs filed a COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT with the bankruptcy court alleging the debt should not be discharged for the identical reasons stated in the action before us and that the proper forum to prove the allegations is the 24th Judicial District Court. The bankruptcy court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint.

A bankruptcy discharge is conclusive on all parties and can only be set aside and reversed in direct proceedings. Bluthental v. Jones, 208 U.S. 64, 28 S.Ct. 192, 52 L.Ed. 390 (1908); General Protestant Orphans’ Home v. Ivey, 240 F.2d 239 (6th Cir.1956). In order to reverse Jones’ discharge in bankruptcy, this attack cannot be prosecuted in the state court. See id. It must proceed by direct attack in the bankruptcy court.

Accordingly, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in Jones’ favor is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Armand v. Armand
175 So. 3d 1118 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2015)
Carrol Falgout Armand v. Donald R. Armand
Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2015
Sheriff v. J.E. Tallieu Real Estate, Inc.
598 So. 2d 357 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
595 So. 2d 686, 1992 La. App. LEXIS 501, 1992 WL 32705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheriff-v-j-e-tallieu-real-estate-inc-lactapp-1992.